You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Until Now little has been written on the central importance of supervision in the training of analysts. Nor, in my view, has it been subject to much methodical research. This is not so much a shortcoming as a demonstration of how much analytical psychology, a modern discipline which is still striving to establish itself on a scientific basis, is traditionally dependent on direct verbal and non-verbal communication, and to development within that tradition. So this symposium on supervision can change nothing since the crucial factors, in the supervision process as it develops, are personal experience and communication: critical reflection increases an awareness of that developmental process.
The terms ‘supervision’ and ‘control analysis’ seem to me to obscure rather than to elucidate the process. Both words indicate a standpoint beyond that of the events taking place; they allocate a superior position to the supervisor, make him into a super-ego, or controller. To some extent the trainee does experience his supervisor in that way, but, to my mind, this makes it possible for the supervision to fail in its essential purpose. I should like to amplify these remarks under three headings.